TARACHAND Vs. UNIQUE AGRO PROCESSORS (INDIA) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As we know there are various stages involved in filing of the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short referred as "N.I.Act). Different time limit is prescribed for these stages. Section 138 of N.I.Act is bifurcated into two parts. One is 'part excluding three proviso' and second is 'part comprising three provisos'.

(2.) There are two views prevailing about interpretation of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. One view is that moment cheque is dishonoured, it is said that offence is complete and compliance of the procedure laid down in three provisos only postpones filing of complaint. Another view is that offence is complete only when there is a compliance of the procedure laid down in three proviso preceded by dishonour of cheque.

(3.) The first stage deals with issuance of notice to the drawer. Proviso (b) deals with that It has to be issued within 15 days (it was there till 2002 and which is extended to 30 days). The period is to be computed from "the date of receipt of information by the drawer from the bank". In the case before me the controversy has arisen in between the parties which is the correct date of getting a knowledge of dishonour by the complainant. On one hand the complainant contended that he got knowledge on 23rd May, 1997. Whereas on the basis of available evidence, the accused contended that it is not on 23rd May, 1997 but it is on 21st May, 1997 the complainant was informed about the dishonour by his banker.